Keyes: Gun Control Is Part of a Plan to Kill Hundreds of Thousands

Alan Keyes may no longer be the Religious Right superstar he once was, but rest assured, he is still active and remains just as erudite and unhinged as always.  Appearing recently via webcam on something called "The Talk to Solomon Show," Keyes declared that everyone knows that our society is on the verge of slipping into lawless chaos and it is therefore "insane" for anyone to be promoting any sort of gun control efforts at this time. 

In fact, said Keyes, any government official who supports gun control is doing so because they want average citizens to be rendered defenseless against the "criminals and psychotic folks" who are going to running wild in the anarchy to come because it serves the larger goal of curbing the global population and the effort is "intended to make sure that people will be slaughtered by the thousands and the hundreds of thousands":

Thomas More Law Center Warns SCOTUS Gay Rights Victory Would Lead to 'Ideological Totalitarianism'

The Thomas More Law Center, a right-wing legal group whose advisory board includes Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Rep. Allen West, is warning the Supreme Court that a ruling in favor of marriage equality would lead to “ideological totalitarianism” and hand gay rights advocates “a legal weapon with which to beat down ideological opponents.”

In an amicus brief filed last week [pdf], Thomas More argues:

To enshrine one side of a deeply divisive issue in constitutionally untouchable concrete is to fashion a legal weapon with which to beat down ideological opponents, at the cost of intellectual liberty. For this Court to say that it is irrational or illegitimate for a government to recognize, and act upon, the distinction between the potentially procreative marital act, and every other sexual act, would be for this Court implicitly to declare as irrational, benighted, or bigoted, all those individuals who adhere to the traditional view of marriage.

Already those who dare to voice objections to any part of the political program of various LGBT advocacy groups risk vilification, marginalization, or worse. Liberty suffers when one side of a debate is delegitimized as a matter of constitutional law.

….

In Lawrence, this Court has held that sexual acts between persons of the same sex may not be prohibited. But to go further and say that no government may treat such acts as different, for purposes of government policy or official recognition, from the unique marital acts of a man and a woman, would be enormously to expand the constitutional power this Court already affords sexual choices as such. To take that additional step would be to declare unacceptable and illegitimate the recognition of the uniqueness of the marital act. Those who subscribe to that recognition, in turn, then become pariahs, ignoramuses, or bigots in the eyes of the law.

Opponents of the legal redefinition of marriage already face the prospect of significant retaliation. Equating such persons, as a matter of constitutional law, with racist rednecks or backwards fools, serves as a legal license to continue or increase the legal and social marginalization of such persons. The price is the loss of liberty for those individuals who can no longer obtain gainful employment in their fields….and the loss of intellectual diversity for larger society…This Court should not foster the imposition of what would be, in effect, an ideological totalitarianism, i.e., a regime in which the unquestioning acceptance of the same-sex marriage movement represents the only permissible point of view. (Citations omitted)

The Thomas More Law Center is prone to this sort of dramatic prediction. The group unsuccessfully sued the Justice Department over the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which it claimed would create “a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior.” The group further claimed that "the sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin." The Shepard-Byrd Act, of course, only imposes jail sentences on people who have actually committed crimes and has yet to “criminalize the Bible.”

Religious Right's Last Stand to Block Chuck Hagel

While it is becoming extremely unlikely that the GOP will be able to muster enough votes to filibuster Chuck Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary, Religious Right groups and their Republican allies continue to make new and more over-the-top overtures to activists hoping to block his confirmation.

For example, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that “we can’t afford to allow someone who has been that cozy with the terrorist groups that are out there to become Secretary of Defense.”

Inhofe went on to say that Hagel wants to “disarm us” and shows “hostility” toward the U.S. and Israel. Inhofe also cited Sen. Ted Cruz’s questioning of Hagel where he egregiously misrepresented the nominee’s speeches and interview with Al-Jazeera.

Inhofe: That is what is so scary about this; we’d be confirming a secretary of defense—

Perkins: That wants to basically disarm.

Inhofe: Who wants to disarm us. Before I run out of time, Cruz came up with something just great, he’s a new senator from Texas and he’s on my committee, the Armed Services committee, and he came out and he actually used…a spot that came from Al-Jazeera, this was Chuck Hagel being interviewed on Al-Jazeera a short time ago when he agreed with the call-ins at that time that Israel committed war crimes; Hagel admitted that Israel committed ‘sickening slaughters’; admitted that America is the world’s bully. And this is the guy that is trying to become the secretary of defense; it’s a scary, scary thing.

Perkins: Senator before I let you go, just one question: do you know why he seems to be so indifferent if not hostile toward Israel?

Inhofe: And the United States, Tony. I just don’t understand it. Of course, he denies that he is and you know the record confirms that he has this hostility to it. By the way, almost every group in Israel is lobbying us and calling us and saying, ‘please don’t let this happen.’ They’ve been just as concerned about Obama, this is the first time that any President of the United States has trashed Israel in my memory. So I can’t answer that question.

Matthew Hagee, the son of televangelist John Hagee who has been lobbying with Christians United for Israel against Hagel and called him “dangerous to America’s security,” said on the Hagee Hotline that Hagel’s contentious confirmation hearing was an answer to their prayers.

At the end of the day, Pastor Hagee and those 400 [pastors] who joined him were very confident that what they had done was all that was in their physical power to do to not only represent their views as Americans but the views of the body of Christ and the kingdom of God and to stand up on behalf of God’s chosen people, Israel. All that was left to do was to remain in prayer and to be hopeful that the actions that they had taken would make a difference. If you saw any of the headlines following the Senate committee’s interview of Chuck Hagel, you know that a difference was made. You saw that the Senate firsthand was able to expose Hagel’s weaknesses and you saw the difference that the prayer of the righteous and faith in action can make.

Just today the Family Research Council asked activists to pray for Hagel’s defeat and FRC senior fellow Ken Blackwell said Hagel’s nomination invites “chaos and confusion at a time of international peril.” Eagle Forum told members in an action alert that “Chuck Hagel is a threat to America’s strength and safety” and Rick Santorum claimed “his confirmation would be a direct threat to our national security.”

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer also weighed in, saying that Iran “loves” Hagel because he wants to “disarm” the U.S.

Brooklyn Bishop Views Obama as the Anti-Lincoln

Brooklyn’s Roman Catholic Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio is out with a column arguing that voters who supported President Obama’s re-election have brought America a “step deeper into the culture of death” and aided “the forces of death.” He claims that Obama “has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God” and is behind “an assault on the people of faith in our country” through his support for a woman’s right to choose.

DiMarzio concludes that unlike Abraham Lincoln, Obama has not “stood on the side of freedom for all” but instead “stands on the side of political expediency.”

On Jan. 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This Executive Order freed the slaves in the 10 states that were in rebellion. It was not until 1865, with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that slavery was abolished in the United States.

How far we have come as a Nation that 160 years later we will celebrate the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.

Yet, we also commemorate the 40th anniversary of our national shame: the lamentable Supreme Court decision, Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy.

The so-called “pro-choice” movement has its roots in the ideology of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who understood her call to be one who would “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.” Of course, a young Barack Obama was precisely the sort of unfit child that Sanger and her allies would want to eliminate.

Tragically, the President has not been an advocate for those young children faced with similarly difficult circumstances. He has chosen to use the bully pulpit not to call upon us all to be nobler and to embrace each child, regardless of origins and circumstances; rather, he has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God.

The forces of death press on from every side in contemporary American culture. It is clear there is an assault on the people of faith in our country. For instance, there are the current health insurance reforms that were imposed on our Nation obligating Catholic institutions to provide employees with medical procedures and services we believe to be in defiance of the will of God.



In my view, those who voted for President Obama bear the responsibility for a step deeper in the culture of death. Under the cover of women’s issues, we now see an assault on religious freedom and personal conscience.

In our own state, Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed the largest expansion of abortion rights in New York State history. The irony is that our leadership is proposing this at a time when increasingly more Americans oppose abortion and support greater restrictions upon abortions. New York State, which already holds the record for the most abortions in our country, is now expanding this culture of death. We may lose, but we will stand up for what we believe.

Some may think my tone a bit strident and even un-nuanced. Maybe the time has come for more direct conversation on these matters, if we hope to preserve what is left of our God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights.

Abraham Lincoln was a man who understood the intersection between politics and nobility. He never would have been able to pass the Thirteenth Amendment in 1863. But he started by freeing “slaves” in the Confederate States with his Emancipation Proclamation.

I would have hoped that the first African-American president of the United States would have stood on the side of freedom for all. Instead, he stands on the side of political expediency. Mr. Lincoln, with great difficulty, put out into the deep and paid with his life. Would that our political leaders today would have some of the same courage.

WND: Gay Rights Advocates Are 'Homogrifying the Scouts,' Similar to Nazi Invaders

WorldNetDaily’s Barry Farber has quite a stern warning for the Boy Scouts of America if they go through with the now-delayed proposal to allow troops to accept gay members. Farber claims that any move towards “homogrifying the Scouts would hijack the very mission of scouting and turn the organization into a beehive of erotic exploration.” He warns that “admitting gays openly into the Boy Scouts is rather like insisting cigarettes be lit as close as you can get to the nozzle while the gasoline is being pumped.”

“In our Southern culture, you weren’t a ‘man’ until you’d ‘slugged a queer’ who approached you,” Farber said. “I failed the test. I always just rejected the advance and got out of there.”

He even compared the tactics of gay rights advocates to the Nazis who tried to intimidate and overpower their opponents.

Gays in the Boy Scouts? Scoutmasters, yet! Five years ago I’d have sooner believed you if you’d told me there was a campaign to grant long-repressed rights to blind hunters. How could such a preposterous idea zoom into serious consideration by the Boy Scouts? I may know the answer. The world may have seen it previewed on April 9, 1940.

The night before, Nazi German general Nikolaus von Falkenhorst had checked into the KNA Hotel in Oslo, Norway, in civilian clothes as a shoe salesman. Early the next morning he walked down the staircase resplendent in his German general’s uniform to greet his troops in their surprise invasion of Norway.

“It was brilliant,” a Norwegian friend told me. “We were psychologically defeated before we even knew we were under attack. There was a German military parade in downtown Oslo! When you see a parade you think, ‘This is planned. This is official. All this is somehow OK.’” There you have it. A parade makes everything seem somehow OK.

And what an awesome parade we’re watching to smash the traditional Boy Scout policy! The parade begins at the White House and includes all liberal politicians and those dependent on liberals for re-election, the media, the faculty, lots of clergy – I’m not sure there’s any room left for actual gays in that parade. And, like those super-stunned Norwegians, the rest of us are standing curbside, watching with dropping jaws.

America, have you gone mad? Don’t you remember being a 12-to-15-year-old boy? And weren’t you girls “awakening” at about the same age? Don’t you realize that homogrifying the Scouts would hijack the very mission of scouting and turn the organization into a beehive of erotic exploration? I don’t fear gay boys hitting on straights as much as I fear straights asking, “What’s this ‘gay’ stuff all about? Is there anything in it for us?” I also fear for the safety of young gays who, innocently or opportunistically, give a wrong smile or say the wrong thing to the wrong straight. In our Southern culture, you weren’t a “man” until you’d “slugged a queer” who approached you. I failed the test. I always just rejected the advance and got out of there.

The battle to diminish youth sex was lost – surrendered – with the schoolhouse condom giveaways. To a young teenager, that was the grown-up world telling you, “We know you’re going to do it, and we want to help you do it right.” And what message would the welcoming of gays into the Boy Scouts send? “Gay-play must be OK, or the grown-ups wouldn’t allow us to be camping, swimming, showering, sleeping, horsing around and walking through the woods together!” Admitting gays openly into the Boy Scouts is rather like insisting cigarettes be lit as close as you can get to the nozzle while the gasoline is being pumped.

From condemnation to condone-nation in one parade! The Nazis didn’t have it that easy in Norway.

Rios Claims Gay Men Are Child Predators by Nature

Today, the Boy Scouts of America board said that it will postpone a final decision on the future of the ban on gay members until May. Two days before the announcement, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios said that gay men are child predators by nature and consequently should be banned from Scouting.

While responding to an email she received from a listener named David who opposes the current prohibition on gay Boy Scouts, Rios argued that gay men “like youth, most of them like young men” and go into professions like teaching and coaching so “they can be around boys.”

Like other supporters of the ban, Rios cited Jerry Sandusky, who is married to a woman and wouldn’t have been affected by the ban on gay members.

“These are our children and their safety and well-being trumps any desire of any gay man to be a Scout leader or a gay boy to be a Scout,” Rios said. “If you want to be that and you can’t I’m sorry but we can’t all be what we want to be, we can’t put others at risk just because we want something.”

If you know anything about this you know that gay men love youth. They may not all like prepubescent boys but they like youth, most of them like young men, that’s why they go into professions and work with boys, that’s why they become teacher and coaches and shall we say Jerry Sandusky priests? They go places where they can be around boys, that seems to be a favorite thing and if you think that’s not true you know it is true. Not all gay men are pedophiles but all male pedophiles who like boys are gay. It seems to be a problem in the gay community, not a problem shared by all of them but everyone that has a problem with this seems to be gay, so you figure that out.

I would have to say that zero percent of straight men are interested in boys, zero percent. So if anyone is going to straighten this out it just might be a straight man, not a gay man, that defies logic just a bit. By the way David, these are our children, these are our children and their safety and well-being trumps any desire of any gay man to be a Scout leader or a gay boy to be a Scout. If you want to be that and you can’t I’m sorry but we can’t all be what we want to be, we can’t put others at risk just because we want something. At least we used to understand that, now it’s like whatever you want to do you can do it and the rest of us be…you know what it shouldn’t be that way David, these are our kids and we’re trying to protect them.

Meanwhile, Buster Wilson of the AFA went on another anti-gay diatribe, insisting that parents “are not going to allow their boys to go on camping trips with a gay Scout leader.”

They’re going to change the policy of no gays in the Boy Scouts to changing it to let every Boy Scout entity decide for themselves. Well the President weighed in on that before the ballgame last night…he said, quoting now: ‘My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life.’ Unbelievable. Now he’s talking about the Boy Scouts and he’s talking about gays and lesbians should have every opportunity in the Boy Scouts that everybody else does. Doesn’t matter, Mr. President, does it, that that will destroy the Boy Scouts?

And for all the mocking that comes from all the folks on the left it will destroy the Boy Scouts. It will wind up, as I said last week, just being a few, a small percentage of people who believe you should be tolerant and accept anything and everything. That small percentage and then the gay community, that’s all that will be in the Boy Scouts if they change their rule. Southern Baptist Convention, Baptist churches are the largest number of organizations that host Boy Scout troops, they have said that the churches will withdraw from Boy Scouts in mass droves. So many other people have said they will pull their boys out. They are not going to allow their boys to go on camping trips with a gay Scout leader, out in the woods with a gay Scout leader for three or four days.

Anti-Gay, Anti-Immigrant, Birther Groups Join Forces to File Mother of All Prop 8 Briefs

In reading through the amicus briefs submitted by anti-gay groups to the Supreme Court, we’ve been generally impressed by the relative restraint of their legal arguments compared to their day-to-day anti-gay tirades. But not so with the two briefs submitted last week by a hodgepodge coalition of conservative groups.

Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer filed two no-holds-barred amicus briefs last week, one in defense of Prop 8 [pdf] and one in defense of DOMA [pdf]. They were joined in both by the anti-immigrant groups Declaration Alliance and English First; WorldNetDaily affiliate the Western Center for Journalism; the Institute for Constitutional Values (founded by white supremacist ally Michael Peroutka, who also argues that the solution to school violence is to abolish schools); Gun Owners Foundation (the research wing of Gun Owners of America); the extremely and occasionally comically anti-gay Public Advocate; the birther group U.S. Justice Foundation; Protect Marriage Maryland and others. Far-right Virginia Del. Bob Marshall and Sen. Dick Black joined the DOMA brief. Both are signed by Michael Boos, general counsel of Citizens United, and by Herb Titus, an attorney with a sideline as a birther advocate.

So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the filings contain passages like this one, in the Prop 8 brief, arguing that laws against homosexuality affirm rather than deny the humanity of gay people:

Second, while the discrimination against Blacks in America denied them their rightful status as a member of the human race vis-à-vis their white counterparts, the discrimination against homosexuals affirmed their status as full and equal members of the human race. Indeed, the very definition of the “crime against nature,” was employed to emphasize that the sexual behavior condemned was contrary to the law of human nature. Homosexual behavior, then, while unnatural did not mean that those guilty of it were any less human.

Or this one from the DOMA brief arguing that gays and lesbians have not historically faced discrimination because some criminal sodomy laws also “extended to opposite sex unnatural couplings”:

As a class, homosexuals have not been discriminated against in the way that the court of appeals has so “easily” assumed. The appellate panel below concluded that “the most telling proof of animus and discrimination is that, for many years and in many states, homosexual conduct was criminal.” Yet historically, even the crime of sodomy was not so targeted. Rather, it was defined as “carnal copulation against the order of nature by man with man; or in the same unnatural manner with woman; or by man or woman in any manner with a beast.” Thus, the crime of sodomy was “known in the common law by the convertible and equivalent name [] of ‘crime against nature,” the offense not only extended to opposite sex unnatural couplings, but was one of several sexual offenses that fit under the broad category of “offenses against the public health, safety, comfort and morals.” Among these sexual offenses were bigamy, adultery, fornication, lewdness and illicit cohabitation, incest, miscegenation, and seduction, all of which could be committed by persons of the opposite sex. Rather than a narrow negative purpose, these laws reflect a perceived concern for the public health, safety, comfort, and morals of certain sexual behaviors.

Or that the groups oh-so-cleverly invoke the court’s Obamacare decision to argue that the extra taxes same-sex spouses pay under DOMA are an acceptable way of “deterring certain activities”:

Additionally, this Court has consistently ruled that Congress’s power to tax is not limited to the purpose of raising revenue. Thus, this Court found that it is permissible for Congress to adopt a taxing policy for the purpose of deterring certain activities by the levying of a tax on them, as well as for the purpose of collecting revenue. Therefore, according to precedent, it is a constitutionally permissible exercise of Congress to adopt a tax policy for the purpose of nurturing traditional marriage as the ideal family structure for raising children, just as this Court has recently observed, that it is perfectly permissible for Congress to impose a tax “to encourage people to quit smoking” or “to shape decisions about whether to buy health insurance.”…It is not for the courts to second-guess whether Congress should promote a traditional family policy in the exercise of its taxing powers.

But what is truly remarkable about the Citizens United coalition’s legal arguments is their eagerness to burn all bridges and declare everything they come across unconstitutional. While the Family Research Council and Liberty Counsel, presumably trying to appeal to Justice Anthony Kennedy, hold their noses and accept Kennedy’s pro-gay rights opinions in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans as law, Citizens United et al have no such scruples. Not only should Lawrence and Romer be overturned, this group argues, but so should Bolling v. Sharpe, the 1954 Brown v. Board companion case that desegregated the District of Columbia’s public schools. Bolling was the first decision in which the Supreme Court explicitly found an equal protection component in the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, thus setting the stage for six decades of prohibitions on discrimination by the federal government – all of which the coalition would like to see go.

But these groups don’t just go after decades of legal precedent. They also personally attack two judges who ruled against Prop 8 before it reached the Supreme Court, in particular district court judge Vaughn Walker, who is openly gay:

With the understanding of Judge Walker’s personal interest in the outcome of the case, it becomes much easier to understand his finding every fact for the plaintiffs and his willingness to impute ill will to the proponents of Proposition 8. For example, having in his personal life rejected 6,000 years of moral and religious teaching, we can see how Judge Walker could readily determine that California voters were motivated solely by “moral and religious views…that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples [and] these interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8.” The same is true for Judge Walker’s conclusion that supporters’ motivations were: “fear,” “unarticulated dislike,” not “rational,” based on “animus toward gays and lesbians,” “irrational,” “without reason,” and “born of animus.” Petitioners were entitled to have their case heard by an impartial judge – not one who was leading a secret life engaging in behaviors which he appeared to believe were being unfairly judged and criticized by the proponents of Proposition 8.

 

(Citations omitted in block quotes)
 

Right Wing Round-Up - 2/5/13

  • Media Matters: Fox's Ablow Says He'll Run For Senate If Republican Leaders Are "United Around Me".
  • Igor Volsky @ Think Progress: Right-Wing Congressman Suddenly Embraces A Health Care Mandate…For Immigrants.
  • David Ferguson @ Raw Story: Glenn Beck calls Obama ‘full-fledged woman’ over concern about football concussions.
  • Brian Beutler @ TPM: Federal Appeals Court Decision Would Have Invalidated Hundreds Of Recess Appointments From Reagan To Obama.
  • Noah Rothman @ Mediaite: Mark Levin Savages Karl Rove’s ‘Diabolical’ Anti-Tea Party PAC: ‘We’re Being Stabbed In The Back.’

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/5/13

  • Glenn Beck dedicated last night's program to exposing how today's progressives are really modern-day eugenicists.
  • The National Bible Association has awarded its top honor to Hobby Lobby President Steve Green for fighting the government's HHS mandate.
  • Matt Barber says gay activists "want access to our children, to be able to corrupt their minds and instill in them this worldview that says there is no right and wrong, that there is no such thing as sexual sin or sexual morality."
  • ALIPAC's William Gheen says Senators "Rubio, McCain, and Graham are deeply scarring their reputations within the Republican party by both pushing amnesty for illegal immigrants and remaining in open coalition with Senator Bob Menendez despite these shocking revelations and scandals. Senator Menendez needs to resign from the immigration reform amnesty group and the US Senate seat he is disgracing with his continued presence."
  • Finally, Bryan Fischer offers his own "Christian approach to immigration reform," in which all who are here illegally will "engage in self-repatriation."

Fischer: Boy Scouts Must Drop Language About Being 'Morally Straight' if Gays are Allowed to Join

Responding to a listener who called into his "Focal Point" radio program today, Bryan Fischer said that if the Boy Scouts decide to drop the prohibition on gay scouts and leaders, the organization will have to change the language in its oath that scouts repeat as they pledge "to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight" because the phrase "morally straight" will be rendered meaningless.

"Even homosexuals refer to us as 'straights'," Fischer explained, "because we're straight, we're not crooked, we're not bent, we're not twisted, we're not perverse, we're straight. I mean, the opposite of straight is bent, twisted, crooked, perverse, so that term ['morally straight'] is going to be meaningless now":

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious